Forcing Pass Systems

[awm]

A forcing pass system typically uses an opening pass to show a good hand (like a precision club, but usually a lower minimum point range like 13+ or 14+). There will be some other opening that is artificial and shows a weak hand (i.e. 0-7 points) with more or less any shape (often this is 1♥ or 1♠).

 

Most people agree that forcing pass should not be allowed in beginner/intermediate events -- the question is whether to allow it in "major" events like national or world championships. A rough summary of the arguments I see frequently:

 

In favor of allowing forcing pass: In a big championship event, anything goes. As long as methods are disclosed adequately it should be legal to play anything. Perhaps forcing pass is fundamentally superior to "standard bidding" -- why ban better methods and prevent the evolution of the game? While it might make sense to protect "beginners" from complicated methods, in events that are supposed to determine the best of the best it does not make much sense to protect "unprepared" players.

 

Against allowing forcing pass: Highly Unusual Methods like this require a lot of time to prepare against. Especially in a shorter format it is unreasonable to force competitors to put in the time for every weird method that might appear. Further, these sorts of methods make it very difficult for spectators/commentators since no one can really understand the bidding. They also tend to increase the variance of results, possibly randomizing the event.

 

Obviously I could've put this in the "non-natural systems" forum (in fact my reason for posting it stems from a discussion there) but that forum is read mostly by "system geeks" who in general are in favor of an "anything goes" approach much more often than the bridge population at large. In fact there is some concern that BBO Forums as a whole is hardly an unbiased sample of serious bridge players, but this seems the best I can do...

[effervesce]

*wonders if there would be any correlation with the political compass thread: do libertarians vote for anything goes, and authoritarians for banning it? :D

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28393

 

FYI, I voted for team matches of 8 boards or longer. Though I imagine if HUM systems became mainstream (I wish!) people might possibly get familiar enough with the diversity of HUM systems to be able to wing it in a pairs event.

[MarkDean]

I voted long matches, but my guess would be that if that happened for a few years, we could move up the list. I am sort of an anything goes type guy, but I think we need to work to it slowly.

[CarlRitner]

It's only HUM because it's mostly banned. If folks were exposed to it enough, it would perhaps be just UM.

 

 

... to put in the time for every weird method that might appear

 

I don't play it but I don't see it as weird. It has a logical basis and follows the same philosophies one finds in Precision club and fast arrival.

 

You did say "top-flight" events!

[nige1]

It's only HUM because it's mostly banned. If folks were exposed to it enough, it would perhaps be just UM.

IMO If FP is as effective as I believe it is, it would quickly become the most popular method at any level where it was legal.

 

:lol: I voted for FP to be legal even at match-pointed pairs :)

[helene_t]

I voted even in pair matches. I envision a few problems (how strong is a jump overcall over a fert? Is a double of the 1♥ fert related to the hearts suit?) but those kind of problems arise with all kind of already legal methods. Some of the run-outs that people play over their baby notrump, and some of the defenses they use against strong club, seem far more confusing than FP and ferts, so I see no reason to single FP out. I have slightly more sympathy for banning Major Flash and Canape overcalls.

[Rossoneri]

I would say take it to 8 board matches first and see how it goes, I voted that but I am not shutting out the possibility of applying it to pairs if it works out...

[akhare]

I voted for > 8 board team matches. However, poll results notwithstanding, I doubt that such methods will ever be permitted in ACBL-land...

[JanM]

I voted even in pair matches. I envision a few problems (how strong is a jump overcall over a fert? Is a double of the 1♥ fert related to the hearts suit?) but those kind of problems arise with all kind of already legal methods. Some of the run-outs that people play over their baby notrump, and some of the defenses they use against strong club, seem far more confusing than FP and ferts, so I see no reason to single FP out. I have slightly more sympathy for banning Major Flash and Canape overcalls.

Back in 1987, in the Bermuda Bowl, one of the pairs on the English team (actually I think it was Great Britain then) played a forcing pass system, with various fert openings. Back then, we didn't have an internet and there was no advance disclosure of systems - we arrived in Jamaica and found out about the forcing pass system. Also, back then, teams from the USA and Europe entered the event at the semi-finals, so the English pair had played many hands before our team played them. My first experience with developing defenses was spending hours on a lovely beach in Ocho Rios poring over play records (hand-written by hard-working recorders, because of course we didn't have BBO back then either) to try to figure out what sorts of hands the pair was opening which fert, how they were "responding" to the strong pass and I've now forgotten what else. Chip & Lew (the "scientists" on the US team) then developed a defense. They tried to keep it reasonably simple - as far as I recall, they treated the pass as an opening bid, so that their bids over it were "overcalls" not openings; they passed with good hands over some of the ferts, in order to have a chance to get the opponents later; otherwise they tried to get back to their own system as quickly as possible. Sounds easy, right? Why would world class players have any problems?

 

Well - on one hand, one of the US players had a hand with which he would have opened a strong 2♣ in first seat. But he was in second seat and the English player opened 1♦ showing less than an opening bid and I don't know what else. The US pair had decided that after a fert opening, their 1-level bids would be as if the opponent had passed. Unfortunately, they hadn't discussed the 2-level. The player with the strong hand decided that based on their discussion, a 2♣ "overcall" should be the same as a 2♣ opening bid, his partner thought differently - they played a grand slam in a partscore.

 

On another hand, Chip & Lew(the "scientists" who should have been best able to cope), had an accident when one of them made what he thought was a forcing bid on the third round of an auction that had started with an English strong pass - looking at the bids on the tray, he forgot that his partner's opening 1♠ bid was really an overcall and therefore his 2/1 response wasn't game forcing.

 

Chip & Lew did succeed in getting a number after one of the ferts, and our team out-played the English team, so the US won the Bermuda Bowl. But to suggest that a strong pass creates only "a few problems" is really a huge underbid.

[Cascade]

Chip & Lew did succeed in getting a number after one of the ferts, and our team out-played the English team, so the US won the Bermuda Bowl. But to suggest that a strong pass creates only "a few problems" is really a huge underbid.

Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents.

[ArcLight]

>Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents.

 

But is it still Bridge, or does it become a bluffing game?

Does it make the game better overall?

Does it change the nature of the game?

 

Is it really fun (for most people) to have to study lots of defenses against various systems? Spending lots of time learning different bidding systems?

 

I have a gut feeling that many who favor destructive bidding are not all that good as card players. They like beatiung up on people who don't spend hours devising counter measures. But they are not all that good at defense or declarer play.

(I am not accusing anyone here in particular, this is an overall impression)

[jdonn]

Chip & Lew did succeed in getting a number after one of the ferts, and our team out-played the English team, so the US won the Bermuda Bowl. But to suggest that a strong pass creates only "a few problems" is really a huge underbid.

Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents.

Of course it's not as simple as that. Putting a box of tissues on top of my bidding cards would create problems for them as well.

 

Although, as I read what happened to Chip and Lew on those three hands, they

- Failed to make an agreement in a situation that obviously should have been discussed

- Forgot their agreement

- Collected a number

 

So it's hard to feel that much sympathy for them facing the ferts.

[Cascade]

Chip & Lew did succeed in getting a number after one of the ferts, and our team out-played the English team, so the US won the Bermuda Bowl. But to suggest that a strong pass creates only "a few problems" is really a huge underbid.

Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents.

Of course it's not as simple as that. Putting a box of tissues on top of my bidding cards would create problems for them as well.

 

Although, as I read what happened to Chip and Lew on those three hands, they

- Failed to make an agreement in a situation that obviously should have been discussed

- Forgot their agreement

- Collected a number

 

So it's hard to feel that much sympathy for them facing the ferts.

Of course there are constraints on what you are allowed to do.

 

But if my opponents turn up under prepared I have very little sympathy for them.

[Cascade]

>Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents.

 

But is it still Bridge, or does it become a bluffing game?

Does it make the game better overall?

Does it change the nature of the game?

 

Is it really fun (for most people) to have to study lots of defenses against various systems? Spending lots of time learning different bidding systems?

 

I have a gut feeling that many who favor destructive bidding are not all that good as card players. They like beatiung up on people who don't spend hours devising counter measures. But they are not all that good at defense or declarer play.

(I am not accusing anyone here in particular, this is an overall impression)

What is the bluff?

 

Fun or not it is one of the challenges of the game. It seems to me that many of the opponents to HUM systems and Forcing Pass in particular make these systems out to be more complicated than they actually are.

 

Pass* - 13+ Any distribution

 

1D* - 8-12 4+ Hearts can be canape

 

1S* - 0-7 any but usually fairly balanced (unsuitable for a pre-empt) or very weak

 

How difficult are these to understand?

 

The current regulations even allow the opponents of these methods to have the advantage of writing down their defense and consulting it.

 

Bridge is a game of many facets - Bidding, Declarer Play, Defense. These in turn can be broken up into a number of factors - partnership communication, individual judgement etc etc.

 

Bridge is not scored according to how good your declarer play is. It is scored according to the result you obtain at the end of the hand.

 

In the long run I feel equally good if I can obtain an excellent results by any legitimate means and why shouldn't I?

 

I find it bizarre that some want to reduce the game we play with all of its facets to a technical declarer play contest in which everyone plays the same contract. Ok that is probably an exaggeration. However the argument that some facets of the game are more important than others even when they have an equal affect on my result does not make much sense to me.

 

Classifying methods as destructive does not seem helpful to me. It seems to be designed as an emotive term to reflect the describers biased opinion. Forcing Pass is certainly not destructive it is designed as a constructive measure to give your side the most space on strong hands.

 

And at any rate what is wrong with destructive? If you appreciate that bridge is played by one side against another then you quickly come to the realization that what is good for me (constructive) is bad for them and conversely what is bad for them (destructive) is good for me. Therefore both constructive and destructive measures have an important role in how we design our methods for both bidding and card-play (e.g. squeeze technique and false cards).

[jdonn]

Wayne, obviously the question really becomes "what is bridge?" By which I mean taking what you were saying, yes many factors 'should' impact the outcome of a bridge hand, but it would be hard to reach consensus on what all of those are.

 

For example, there are lots of legitimate ways my bids may help me achieve a good result.

 

- They may convey information accurately to help me reach my best contract.

- They may take up space from the opponents to prevent them from exchanging information.

- They may deceive the other players, but at a moment when the deception harms the opponents more than it harms partner.

 

And surely others. And of course there are illegitimate ways my bids may help me achieve a good result.

 

- I may block them from the view of the opponents.

- I may fail to disclose their meanings to the opponents.

- I may make them in a manner that conveys a secret message to partner.

 

And so on, and naturally those are discouraged by the laws. The problem is, there are a number of ways my bids may help me achieve a good result which some bridge players may think are legitimate (as I suspect you do) and others may not (as I suspect you would be forced to admit).

 

- They may be completely unfamiliar to the opponents and present situations they could never have thought to consider before.

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

- They may have two or more possible meanings at a point when partner can tell which of those meanings is more likely but the opponents can not.

- They may be so downright complicated that it would take years of experience to master the information they convey.

- They may create a very large randomizing effect on the game.

 

Like it or not, there will be lots of players who do not believe those should be legitimate ways a bid should gain for one side or the other. And who is to say they are any more wrong than you are if you believe it is not legitimate for me to bid quickly to convey one message and slowly to convey another? After all, the game could certainly be played either way, it would just technically be a different game. In the end, it all simply comes down to what someone thinks bridge 'should' be, and since I have a hard time claiming anyone is wrong then the only thing I can believe is that the preference of the majority should rule the day.

[Cascade]

- They may be completely unfamiliar to the opponents and present situations they could never have thought to consider before.

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

- They may have two or more possible meanings at a point when partner can tell which of those meanings is more likely but the opponents can not.

- They may be so downright complicated that it would take years of experience to master the information they convey.

- They may create a very large randomizing effect on the game.

So these people want protection from their inadequate preparation?

 

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

 

Who cares?

 

Or maybe more importantly ...

 

Where is the boundary?

 

And how do you measure it?

 

- They may have two or more possible meanings at a point when partner can tell which of those meanings is more likely but the opponents can not.

 

You mean like Roman Key Card Blackwood responses?

 

I don't see the big deal here.

 

- They may be so downright complicated that it would take years of experience to master the information they convey.

 

Theoretically this is possible. I doubt that it is a major issue in practice.

 

- They may create a very large randomizing effect on the game.

 

The random affect in the game is already very large compared with the differences in skill level. In any statistics I have seen the standard deviation on a board is over 6 IMPs where the difference in teams in contention will be measured in fractions of IMPs per board.

 

I am not entirely sure what randomizing methods you are thinking of in this category.

[JanM]

Chip & Lew did succeed in getting a number after one of the ferts, and our team out-played the English team, so the US won the Bermuda Bowl. But to suggest that a strong pass creates only "a few problems" is really a huge underbid.

Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents.

Of course it's not as simple as that. Putting a box of tissues on top of my bidding cards would create problems for them as well.

 

Although, as I read what happened to Chip and Lew on those three hands, they

- Failed to make an agreement in a situation that obviously should have been discussed

- Forgot their agreement

- Collected a number

 

So it's hard to feel that much sympathy for them facing the ferts.

I was actually discussing three different hands, and the 2♣ hand was a different pair. And when you're given very little time to prepare, it's difficult to know what "should have been discussed" - I've seen enough people who think they know what they're doing against multi (and say that it's "easy" to defend against) have accidents to know that people don't discuss everything and never will. I'd also point out that there's a difference between forgetting ones agreements and looking down at an auction that looks like one thing and not remembering it's really another.

 

But if my opponents turn up under prepared I have very little sympathy for them.

 

It's difficult to prepare for things, and particularly difficult to be fully prepared for something when you have 2 days to prepare for it. Part of the question raised by "when should <fill in your own favorite method here> be allowed is how much do we want to advantage people who can hire someone to prepare defenses and who have the time to study the defenses and practice against strange methods. Or perhaps I should say it the other way - how much do we want to disadvantage the more casual player who doesn't have the money to hire someone to write defenses or the time to practice against lots of unusual methods?

[jdonn]

- They may be completely unfamiliar to the opponents and present situations they could never have thought to consider before.

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

- They may have two or more possible meanings at a point when partner can tell which of those meanings is more likely but the opponents can not.

- They may be so downright complicated that it would take years of experience to master the information they convey.

- They may create a very large randomizing effect on the game.

So these people want protection from their inadequate preparation?

Yes. Sort of like you want protection from your blocked line of sight when I don't let you see what I bid.

 

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

 

Who cares?

 

Or maybe more importantly ...

 

Where is the boundary?

 

And how do you measure it?

To take those in order, lots of people, who cares, and who cares?

 

- They may have two or more possible meanings at a point when partner can tell which of those meanings is more likely but the opponents can not.

 

You mean like Roman Key Card Blackwood responses?

 

I don't see the big deal here.

I already said you probably wouldn't.

 

- They may be so downright complicated that it would take years of experience to master the information they convey.

 

Theoretically this is possible. I doubt that it is a major issue in practice.

Probably not.

 

- They may create a very large randomizing effect on the game.

 

The random affect in the game is already very large compared with the differences in skill level. In any statistics I have seen the standard deviation on a board is over 6 IMPs where the difference in teams in contention will be measured in fractions of IMPs per board.

 

I am not entirely sure what randomizing methods you are thinking of in this category.

So now players have to have looked at statistics to have an opinion? I had no particular methods in mind for any of these examples by the way.

 

I don't even disagree with anything in particular you said, but you are completely missing the point I was making. If you want to take those arguments around the world and you can convince tons of bridge players you are right, I will be more than happy to play against forcing pass (or anything else). I might even learn it myself. Until you do that, I believe it's more important what more people think than what fewer people think.

[Cascade]

But if my opponents turn up under prepared I have very little sympathy for them.

 

It's difficult to prepare for things, and particularly difficult to be fully prepared for something when you have 2 days to prepare for it. Part of the question raised by "when should <fill in your own favorite method here> be allowed is how much do we want to advantage people who can hire someone to prepare defenses and who have the time to study the defenses and practice against strange methods. Or perhaps I should say it the other way - how much do we want to disadvantage the more casual player who doesn't have the money to hire someone to write defenses or the time to practice against lots of unusual methods?

Perhaps this was a flaw in the conditions of contest but presummably at least it was symmetrical - they had as much time to prepare against your methods as you had to prepare against theirs.

 

Usually the situation is reversed for the HUM pair despite the WBF systems policy which states:

 

"The objectives are to ensure that WBF Championships can be properly operated and adequately administered, with a fair and equal chance for all competitors, while at the same time affording proper consideration to progress and innovation; to ensure that players are in no doubt as to what is expected of them with regard to preparation and filing of systems material for WBF Championships.

 

Additions or amendments to this policy will normally be put into effect only after four months' notice."

 

That same system policy goes on to create an unequal playing field in which there are obvious disadvantages to those playing "HUM" systems and "Brown Sticker Conventions":

 

"Whenever a team with one or more pairs using a HUM system opposes a team that has no such pair, the HUM systems team will be the 'Away' team, and lines up first throughout."

 

The only purpose of which seems to be to protect those too lazy to prepare against their opponents.

 

Further the WBF have shown that they are willing to change these rules on a whim to further protect some players from these methods. Again this is despite the policy stating that normally four months notice will be given for ammendents. e.g. In Shanghai last year a pair that was legitimately playing Brown Sticker Conventions against the opponents Conventional 1-short-club was disrupted from doing this by a decree that the Conventional by definition 1♣ was in fact natural.

 

In fact a club that can be "short" - as short as two - meets the WBF definition of "HUM". Such a 1♣ opening shows a subset of hands with length (3+ cards) in clubs and it shows a subset of hands with shortage (2- cards) in clubs.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit "

 

David Stevenson writing about a more complex 1♣ on the BridgeTalk forum wrote

 

"This has been my understanding as well: it would be ruled as not a HUM in a WBF event despite the regulations saying otherwise. "

 

The reality is that the prevailing attitudes and regulations make life much more difficult for those who want to play "HUM" and "Brown Sticker Conventions" than it does for those who want to play, at times equally artificial, but more standard methods.

 

The maintainence of this environments seems in the main to be driven by fearmongering - "these methods are complex", "they are difficult to defend against", "they are destructive" etc.

 

The argument that they are unfamiliar only holds any weight because the regulations force these methods into obscurity.

[benlessard]

IMO a cornerstone of bridge is that the opponents are entitled to the same information than the partnership. Its something impossible to do completly even with the best explanations and good will. But it still something we should aim at all time. So banning complex methods where the inference are impossible to draw for 99.9% of the opponents is just common sense.

 

I voted for 100+ boards matches and only 1 pair per team giving seating rights.

[awm]

In fact a club that can be "short" - as short as two - meets the WBF definition of "HUM".  Such a 1♣ opening shows a subset of hands with length (3+ cards) in clubs and it shows a subset of hands with shortage (2- cards) in clubs.

 

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit "

While you made some good points in this post, I really think you are wrong about this one.

 

By your argument, a 1♥ opening that shows 5+♥ meets the definition of "HUM." Such a 1♥ opening shows a subset of hands with length (3+ cards) in spades and it shows a subset of hands with shortage (2- cards) in spades.

 

The point is that there's a difference between the definition including hands with length and with shortage, and showing length or shortage.

 

A bid that shows "either length in a suit, or a balanced hand" is not the same as showing length or shortage. The 1♣ opening described is actually extremely similar to a precision 1♦ opening. Both are certainly artificial (I agree with you there) but not HUMs.

[Cascade]

- They may be completely unfamiliar to the opponents and present situations they could never have thought to consider before.

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

- They may have two or more possible meanings at a point when partner can tell which of those meanings is more likely but the opponents can not.

- They may be so downright complicated that it would take years of experience to master the information they convey.

- They may create a very large randomizing effect on the game.

So these people want protection from their inadequate preparation?

Yes. Sort of like you want protection from your blocked line of sight when I don't let you see what I bid.

I don't see the analogy at all.

 

One is a deliberate act by an opponent to obscure his card and the other is laziness by the same player to prepare a defense.

 

 

- They may have 0% constructive value and 100% destructive value.

 

Who cares?

 

Or maybe more importantly ...

 

Where is the boundary?

 

And how do you measure it?

To take those in order, lots of people, who cares, and who cares?

 

If noone cares lets make the boundary at 100% destructive is ok.

 

 

I don't even disagree with anything in particular you said, but you are completely missing the point I was making. If you want to take those arguments around the world and you can convince tons of bridge players you are right, I will be more than happy to play against forcing pass (or anything else). I might even learn it myself. Until you do that, I believe it's more important what more people think than what fewer people think.

 

If its what the majority think then there might be:

 

no Blackwood - Gerber only allowed;

 

and therefore no splinters - 4♣ is always Gerber see above;

 

no control showing cue-bids - can't you bid a slam with Gerber;

 

Pretty much any gadget that occurs after the first round of the bidding is complete would be outlawed - oh you would be able to play Gerber.

 

There is no evidence that I have seen that the regulators have made more and more strict system restrictions has been based on what the majority wants. It seems to me to be driven by a minority of experts who want to preserve their perceived advantage over those that would innovate with new methods by making it as difficult as possible for the innovators to play their methods.

[Cascade]

IMO a cornerstone of bridge is that the opponents are entitled to the same information than the partnership. Its something impossible to do completly even with the best explanations and good will. But it still something we should aim at all time. So banning complex methods where the inference are impossible to draw for 99.9% of the opponents is just common sense.

 

I voted for 100+ boards matches and only 1 pair per team giving seating rights.

My experience has been that it is those that play what they consider "natural" methods that are far more likely to not disclose information (usually subtle inferences) about their system.

[awm]

It's worth commenting that the poll results on this thread are dramatically different from the results in the thread about transfer openings.

 

Obviously these are not exactly scientific polls, but the suggestion I'd make would be:

 

(1) When WBF organizers banned forcing pass except for long team events, they were probably following the will of the bridge playing population.

 

(2) When ACBL organizers banned transfer openings except for long team events, they were probably not in line with the will of the bridge playing population.

 

It is all very well to argue that the bridge population should for some reason share your viewpoint. But the rules really should reflect what their viewpoint is rather than what any particular person wants it to be...

[jdonn]

It seems to me to be driven by a minority of experts who want to preserve their perceived advantage over those that would innovate with new methods by making it as difficult as possible for the innovators to play their methods.

If you really think experts on regulatory committees are sitting there saying to themselves "Oh my gosh forcing pass is such a friggin good system, completely superior to what I play, I have to ban it or I'll have no chance!" then you are deluding yourself.

 

That your personal bias prevents you from looking at the issue objectively is plain as day and comes through in everything you type, such as if your opponents don't think it should be part of bridge to show you their bids then they are committing 'deliberate acts', but if they don't think preparation for unfamiliar systems should be part of bridge then they are 'lazy'. You think it's fine that your opponents have to spend huge amounts of time preparing for methods they never see in order to have a chance to even compete, fine you can feel free to think that and maybe you are right (whatever 'right' means in this context.) But if they dare disagree (and what makes them not 'right?) then they are just a lazy minority of experts trying to quash the innovators of the world.